Monday, September 30, 2019

Impeachment? Bring it on. Trump can put the Dems on trial in the Senate

Impeachment? Bring it on. Trump can put the Dems on trial in the Senate




The entrenched elites of both parties and a large portion of the corrupt upper federal bureaucracy understand the mortal threat President Trump poses to them.  This threat has been the driving force behind the continuous efforts to destroy the Trump presidency since (and before) the president's inauguration.
These forces have no doubt already figured out they can't beat the president at the ballot box.  Impeachment is their last desperate chance to rid themselves of the man who has so effectively exposed their self-enrichment and multiple sell-outs of the American people.  And now they think they see their chance — based on a single telephone call in which America's president, reasonably and with more than good cause, suspecting criminal wrongdoing, may have sought the assistance of a foreign head of state in getting to the bottom of his amply justified suspicions.
They are counting on the now widely and deeply loathed former Republican, Mitt Romney, to round up enough Republican turncoat Trump-haters to reach two thirds of the Senate — all without regard to the total absence of anything remotely approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."


No occupant of the White House before the current one has faced even a small fraction of the unrelenting groundless accusations, calumnies, and outright lies endured by President Trump since well before the first day of his presidency.  Through it all, he has repelled the attacks, while he produced concrete results for the American economy and American conservatism unseen since President Reagan. 
The constant, vile, often violent denunciations of America's president during the last nearly three years, all by the 2016 losers and their major media mouthpieces, are without any precedent in the nation's history.  The impeachment proceedings President Trump now confronts — for a single telephone call to a head of state raising issues entirely appropriate to the functions of his office — are merely another round in the Democrat/media elites' continuous efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

In short, having utterly failed with their Russia collusion fantasy, the president's enemies have moved on to an entirely ordinary and appropriate telephone call.
The president's defense in the Senate, accordingly, must engage, spotlight, scrutinize and expose the entire course of odious conduct by the president's corrupt attackers, from their first spinning of the Russia collusion hoax,through the latest chapter in their attempted coup.
Everything will be relevant in the Senate trial, and everyone, no exceptions, should be subpoenaed and interrogated under oath.  That means Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and the entire gang behind the coup.
That includes Strzok, his girlfriend Lisa Page, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and whatever Deep State apparatchiks lied to the FISA judge to enable a spying operation on the Trump campaign and transition team — a crime without precedent and one that massively outweighs anything that could credibly be alleged against President Trump.
Here is the most important benefit of this broad and aggressive approach to the president's defense: in confronting all those who have ceaselessly sought to reverse the 2016 election, President Trump's legal team this time will have a critical tool thus far denied them: the power to subpoena any and all persons, including all those who were elbow-deep in the Russia collusion hoax.  Unlike during the feeble and tedious investigation conducted by the Washington elite's chosen operative, Robert Mueller, every single such person will be sworn and aggressively, publicly interrogated under penalty of perjury, by formidable trial counsel.
What the anti-democratic authors of this latest putsch attempt failed to realize — in their fury of blind hatred — is that the Republican Senate majority will be in command of the scope and duration of the trial and that the truth-revealing power of the subpoena, followed by public testimony under oath, is the surest route to exposing lies and crimes.
Now that America has seen the Russia collusion lie exposed as a fraud, after more than two years of continuous harassment of the constitutionally elected president, both Senate leadership and the American public will be sympathetic to the president's claimed entitlement to lay before the Senate and full electorate all the details of the groundless campaign to drive him from office, a campaign of which "the telephone call" is merely the latest episode.
After Robert Mueller's two-and-a-half-year Russia collusion goose egg, it would be seen as an outrage to deny the president the right to tell the full story that lies behind this latest chapter in the Democrats' three-year attempted putsch.
President Trump needs to promptly assemble a highly professional team of tough, seasoned lawyers, who will all have to be well compensated for the huge professional and personal risk they will be taking — we have seen time and again what the deep state tries to do to the president's prominent supporters. A defense fund for the president would be oversubscribed in two weeks.
Giuliani, as loyal as he has been, may or may not be the right person to assemble this team.
The team needs to be put together quickly, and to promptly announce to the world that the Senate trial, if there is one, will focus on, and expose, the entirety of the Democrat/corrupt federal bureaucracy's anti-constitutional efforts to bring this President down. Many who breathed deep sighs of relief when Robert Mueller threw in the towel are going to be sweating again.
When McConnell announces the scope of the allowable defense and how long the process will go on as Democrat dirt emerges, Ms. Pelosi may become concerned about how many of her party could be destroyed by the process. She may go so far as to as to think better of going forward.  If so, fine -- the Dems, once again, as in the Russia hoax, will look like fools. If, on the other hand (and much more likely), she proceeds (into the moving blades of this propeller) so much the better for the President.
At a minimum, a Senate trial would destroy the Bidens.
Even with an inadvisably narrow defense approach, evidence of Biden's use of his office to extort a lucrative Ukrainian sinecure for his substantively unqualified son is centrally relevant to Trump's defense. Certainly, an American prosecutor, e.g., the U.S. Attorney General, would be entitled to seek evidence of criminal activity from a foreign head of state, where an American's criminal activity involving and centered in that foreign state is reasonably suspected. If so, why not his boss, the President?  Biden's pursuit of the presidency obviously should not shield him or his son from aggressive scrutiny for probable criminal activity.
Concurrently, outside the circle of the President's immediate defense, it is much to be hoped that the investigations of the Make-Bill-and-Hillary-Rich scam, laughably known as The Clinton Foundation, will soon produce indictments.
In their apparent decision to impeach President Trump, the Democrats have taken the final step in the cold civil war they have been waging for nearly three years against a constitutionally elected president and his 63 million+ voters.
The President's response should be withering, broad, and uncompromising. It should be one that turns his attackers into the hunted, a fate their lies and crimes have more than earned them.
In the end, President Trump will be seen for three years to have performed two almost impossible full-time jobs simultaneously and supremely well: President of the United States, and defender of the Constitution's electoral processes against those bent on destroying them.

Political Realignment Is Coming to America

Political Realignment Is Coming to America

The next time hatred comes your way, don’t recriminate. Recruit.
 
 
September 26th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Just over three years ago, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, characterized half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” And for more than three years, Trump, along with everyone who supports him, has been subjected to passionate hatred from nearly everyone who would rather have seen Clinton elected.
It might be tempting to return the favor and hate back. That not only would be a tactical mistake—since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar—but also inaccurate targeting. There are a surprising number of liberals, progressives, and even socialists, who are not only anti-Clinton, but are begrudgingly, and increasingly, capable of seeing the positive side of the Trump presidency.
A very early indication of this came in October 2016, when John Pilger published in the London Progressive Journal an influential article titled, “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” Pilger, notwithstanding his socialist leanings, is a world-renowned journalist and filmmaker of undeniable courage and integrity.
In an eloquent tirade notable for its many, many examples of how Hillary Clinton is a murderous establishment puppet, this observation by Pilger summed it up: “She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.”
Sound familiar? And wow, how that system has tried, and continues to try to take down Trump.

Pilger saw it coming. About Trump, he wrote, “In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.”
A “media hate figure.” Ain’t that the truth! And liberals eat it up. And along with Trump, they hate us. Or do they?
John Pilger isn’t alone. There are millions of liberals, progressives, Democrats, and even socialists who have seen through the establishment’s programmatic hatred, despite (or perhaps because of) it coming from every quarter—entertainment, academia, corporations, politicians, and all mainstream media, online and offline.
Their skepticism is indeed aroused, and not just over Trump.

Loving the Bull

Many Trump supporters cheered his election not because of his pugnacity (about time), or his policies (also about time), but because when you hate the china shop, you love the bull.
Trump has exposed the Democrat versus Republican, Right versus Left, liberal versus conservative paradigms as, if not obsolete shams, then at least models that have lost most of their dialectic vitality. They remain real and represent important differences, but they are overshadowed by a new political polarity, worthy of urgent and vigorous dialectic—globalism versus nationalism.
Until Trump came along, the globalist agenda crept relentlessly forward under the radar. Issues that now can be framed explicitly as globalist versus nationalist—immigration, trade, foreign policy, even climate change—found deceptive expression when shoehorned into the obsolete paradigms.
It suited the uniparty establishment to engage in phony, ostensibly partisan bickering to keep up appearances. It suited them to pretend that immigration and “free” trade bestowed unambiguous global economic benefits, while claiming that to oppose it was economically ignorant and “racist.” It was convenient to pretend ceaseless foreign interventions were based on moral imperatives, while silencing the opposition as “isolationists.” It was easy to get away with promoting climate change policies based on supposedly indisputable scientific evidence, while stigmatizing opponents as “deniers.”
Suddenly all of that is revealed as almost Ptolemaic in its contrived complexity. Here is Trump’s Copernican breakthrough: if you want open borders, absolutely free movement of capital and jobs, and an aggressive international “climate agenda” enforced by the American military, you are a globalist. If you do not, you are a nationalist.

The impact of the globalist agenda has been felt acutely in America already, but the pain is spreading and intensifying.
Unskilled immigrants are taking jobs away from the most vulnerable Americans, and every year, they continue to arrive by the millions. Manufacturing jobs which are vital to America’s economic vitality are being exported to any nation with cheaper labor, costing Americans still more jobs. Policies that are supposedly designed to save the planet have made it virtually impossible to build anything cost-effectively—houses, roads, reservoirs, power plants. In states where the globalist agenda is well advanced, the gap between rich and poor is at record levels, and the cost-of-living is prohibitive.
The rest of the world faces the same onslaught from globalists. With rare exceptions, such as the administrative clerisy and the minute fraction of economic refugees for whom the rudest of welfare benefits in developed nations far exceeds their lot in their nations of origin, the only beneficiaries are the investor class and multinational corporations.
Economic development, utterly dependent on cheap fossil fuel, is denied because fossil fuel is denied. African cities that might become inviting metropolises fueled by natural gas and nuclear power are instead hellholes of misery, as a burgeoning population forages into wilderness areas for food and fuel, stripping it of life.
The problem with the globalist vision isn’t just that it denies people their cultural identity as it McDonaldizes the world. The problem is that it’s not working economically or environmentally. It is an epic disaster, unfolding in slow motion. If globalism isn’t stopped, it will engulf the world in war and misery.
And guess what? There are liberals, progressives, and socialists, who get it. The see how their lives are being destroyed. They see through the platitudes, they see the hypocrisy. They can tell that globalism is not working. They’re looking for new ideas.

 

Modern American Nationalism Transcends President Trump

Donald Trump may have accelerated nationalist movements around the world, but how they find expression in the decades to come depends on how they are shaped by his followers, including belated, reluctant followers, including many who had been his critics. For many years, there have been a lot of smart Democrats who are rejecting the tactics of globalists, even if they have not been critical of globalism itself.
In California, a crucible of American culture, two respected Democrats offer examples of brave commentary that constitutes rank heresy to establishment globalists. In Berkeley, of all places, Michael Shellenberger, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment” and co-writer of the EcoModernist Manifesto, has worked tirelessly through his organization Environmental Progress to campaign for reviving nuclear power in America.
Shellenberger in recent years has turned his attention to California’s homeless crisis, calling for emergency measures that cut through a web of stultifying, counterproductive laws that have prevented effective solutions.
Another Californian, quite possibly the most intelligent Democrat who’s ever lived, is Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University, described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer.” For more than a decade, Kotkin has patiently explained how urban containment (because suburban sprawl supposedly causes excessive “greenhouse gas” emissions”) is strangling our cities and preventing equitable economic growth.
Backing up everything he writes with data, Kotkin has exposed the hidden agenda behind extreme environmentalism, and how it benefits a coalition of special interests—investors, tech billionaires, the professional consultant class, and public sector unions—but condemns everyone else to a feudal existence.

Nationalism Can Be a Model for World Peace and Prosperity

What is nationalism? Why does that word have to connote something extreme? Why can’t it simply acknowledge the practical reality of borders, language, culture, and history, and the ongoing right of citizens to determine their own destiny and compete in the world?
Why is it that to the establishment in America and throughout the western democracies, “globalism” is still held up as an ideal, and the inevitable destiny of humanity? Why can’t that inevitability be restricted to the technical facts of globalization—communications, transportation, trade, finance—without also requiring a surrender of national sovereignty? Why can’t nationalism be compassionatebenevolenteconomically enlightened, and inclusive?
Nationalism can be all those good things. It can be a model for world peace and prosperity.
As for “climate change” mitigation, why are rational criticisms such as those produced by the luminous Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg castigated as denying reality? Shall the reasoned skeptics of the world be swept away by an orchestrated crusade fronted by children? Should the 16-year-old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg’s vapid denunciations of world leaders actually be taken more seriously than Bjorn Lomborg’s impeccable cost/benefit analyses?
Although mass movements of people proceed more slowly, a philosophical realignment arguably is already upon us. In terms of applied political theory, the prevailing opposition today is nationalism versus globalism. Like all polarities, these labels are fraught with ambiguities and contradictions. For that reason, there are virtues to some aspects of globalism just as surely as there is a dark side to nationalism. Moreover, the 20th-century polarities of Left versus Right and liberal versus conservative are still potent. But to have a meaningful political discussion today, those 20th-century labels are subsumed within the new model.
To be a left-wing socialist liberal, most of the time, is to be a globalist. But not always. Not any more. Remember this, the next time hatred comes your way. Realignment is coming.
Don’t recriminate. Recruit.

“Whistleblower” is already being enrolled in the lexicon of political disasters

The Little Engine That Couldn’t

The Democrats think the very fact that a president is impeached is enough tarnish his reputation and diminish his chances of success in the election. Don’t bet on it.
 
 
September 28th, 2019
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make ridiculous. Has it happened to the Democrats yet? I think so, yes. I think so.
“Whistleblower” is already being enrolled in the lexicon of political disasters, and not just on account of pictures of the priapic Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky and featuring a rude joke about “whistleblowers” (“You know how to whistle don’t you? You just put your lips together and blow”).

No, “whistleblower” has entered the joke book of American politics because of the wild discrepancy between aspiration and reality that it represents.
Just last week, an all-points bulletin was blaring from the Get Trump media and the assorted fantasists in the Democratic Party. “Now we’ve got him, lads. Impeachment is just around the corner.” The New York Times said so. So did CNN and MSNBC. So did Nancy Pelosi, soon-to-be-former speaker of the House. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was so certain of it that he thought he could get away with pretending to read the transcript of Donald Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president while actually just making stuff up.
Really. There he was, piece of paper in hand, addressing the House Intelligence Committee (and millions of viewers at home), exuding his signature “the-President-is-not-above-the-law-deer-in-the-headlights-automaton” countenance. The whole thing, Schiff said, was a “mafia-like shakedown.”

I want you,” he pretended to read, “to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”
When it was pointed out that Donald Trump said none of that, Schiff replied that his words—his lies—were a “parody.” Oh.

Achievement Unlocked: Mental Helplessness

In general, one tends to admire perseverance. We like to think it betokens a certain seriousness of purpose. We remember The Little Engine That Could from our childhood and want to root for the blundering but stalwart underdog. “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.” But in this case, the Democrats are not bringing the Christmas presents of impeachment and the destruction of a duly elected president they dislike to the boys and girls on the other side of the mountain. On the contrary, they are making fools of themselves. What we are seeing unfold before our eyes is not a reprise of The Little Engine That Could but a signal illustration of Chesterton’s observation that madness means “using mental activity so as to reach mental helplessness.”
I do not mean to fall prey to Godwin’s Law, but watching the behavior of the Democrats and their media enablers these past few years, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that that have been unduly impressed by the opinion of a former Austrian corporal that if one is going to tell a lie, one should take care that it is a big one.
The trouble is, it is not at all clear that this strategic deployment of mendacity actually works. It did not, in the end, work for the Austrian corporal. And it hasn’t worked for the Democrats, their media hirelings, and their NeverTrump camp followers.
It’s not just that Democrats disliked Donald Trump. They declared him illegitimate. By implication, they declared anyone who supported Trump illegitimate, too.
Beginning in 2015 and continuing until the day before yesterday, we had wall-to-wall lies about Donald Trump “colluding” with the Russians. We spent tens of millions of dollars, destroyed countless careers, and came up with zilch. There was no collusion, though not for want of intimidation, fabrication, and round-the-clock hysteria on the part of the media and damaged souls like Bill Kristol, Pastor David French, and poor Max Boot, among many others.
Like so many pseudo-Hamlets, they looked around and decided that “the time is out of joint. O cursèd spite/that ever was I born to set it right.” The problem is, they have no play to catch the conscience of the king. They only have made-up gossip, lies fabricated by people on the payroll of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, and hate-inspired fantasy. They brought it to bear against Donald Trump during his campaign and in the first two years of his first term: nada.
They tried the same thing, twice, against Brett Kavanaugh. Again, nothing, nichtsrien. And now they are trying it yet again against the president.

A Preposterous Gambit

An unnamed “whistleblower” (personally, I think it is a protégé of John Brennan or possibly Michael Avenatti) cites various rumors he has overheard second- or third-hand, writes it up as an official complaint, and the whole stinking pile of malignant calumny is carefully fed into the Trump outrage machine and takes over the media narrative for a week or so.

It is impossible to overstate how preposterous the whole whistleblower gambit is. As Sean Davis has pointed out at The Federalist, the “intelligence community” (another phrase that has entered the lexicon of political malfeasance) recently, and secretly, changed the rule that “whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.”
The new rules, which were made public only after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was released, “eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only heard about [wrongdoing] from others.” Interesting, what?
Impeachment frenzy cascaded over airwaves and displaced every competing story, even the exploitation of that sick child crusader Greta Thunberg, for about 48 hours. But the floodwaters are rapidly receding and the malodorous muck and detritus that has been left behind are already being subject to the sanitizing scrutiny of people who don’t like being lied to.
Several of my friends are resigned to the prospect of Trump’s impeachment by the House. There is no question—despite Bill Kristol’s active fantasy life—that the Senate will not muster a two-thirds majority to convict him and remove him from office. But, the Democrats presumably are reasoning, the very fact that a president was impeached would tarnish his reputation and diminish his chances of success in the election.
I am not at all sure that is correct. It didn’t happen with Bill Clinton. And beyond that, I am not convinced that the move to impeach the president would even garner the requisite 218 votes in the House. Already, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you can hear the furious sounds of backpedaling as a dim consciousness of what they have done with their impeachment frenzy steals over the reptilian brains of the impeachment choristers.

Ticking Time Bombs

But it is actually worse than that, much worse. I think Thomas Lifson, writing for The American Thinker, is right. The whoops of the impeachment war dance are echoing in an otherwise silent and most severe chamber. All this frenetic activity—the screaming front-page headlines, the salivating attacks on Trump in the now-routinely anti-Trump Drudge Report—all that, as Lifson says, is but the “prelude to the coming time bombs about to explode in their faces.”

The bombs in question, Lifson points out, have names: Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general whose report on malfeasance in the FBI and the “intelligence community” is due any day; John Durham, the U.S. attorney looking into the origins of the attempted coup against Donald Trump; and John Huber, the U.S. attorney who is looking into the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page and connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One scandal.
Those time bombs are indeed ticking, and even the Dems must be able to make out the tick-tick-tick above the fury of their anti-Trump skirling. Some people say that what we are witnessing is just an instance of hardball politics. They hate us, we hate them, let the game begin.
I think it is much worse than that. There were plenty of hints and adumbrations before, but it really took shape with Donald Trump. What we have seen over the last few years is an effort to render a large part (indeed, a majority) of the electorate illegitimate.
Donald Trump won the presidency in a free, open, and democratic election. And yet a sliver of the population—the Antifa thugs, the Hollywood brats, the media sissies, the beautiful people with expensive degrees, and, of course, the radical fringe of the Democratic Party—all refused to accept the results of the election.
It’s not just that they disliked Donald Trump. They declared him illegitimate. By implication, they declared anyone who supported Trump illegitimate, too. In essence, they bowed out of the social compact that underwrote the legitimacy of the American regime.
They adopted the extreme rhetoric and tactics of revolutionaries. “Jusq’au-boutisme” became their rallying crying: by any means necessary. Whatever it takes to rid the country of the Bad Orange Man—and (often unstated but always implied) his unenlightened supporters, whose lack of enlightenment is guaranteed by their support for a man who is “literally Hitler” etc., etc.

Destroying the American Consensus

It is difficult to take the measure of this political wrecking ball, but of this I am confident. The only thing that might—might—assuage our troubled polity is a systematic exposure of the destructive tactics, motives, and political presuppositions of the anti-Trump onslaught. That exposure will require the candid scrutiny of the law, and anyone who cares about the future of American democracy can be heartened that William Barr is the attorney general. Nancy Pelosi is not, as she floated on Friday, going to be able to impeach him any more than Kamala Harris is going to be able to impeach Brett Kavanaugh.
What has been happening these last three years is not just an effort to destroy Donald Trump. That, indeed, is merely incidental to the larger project of destroying the fundamental American consensus. I do not think it will succeed. But I am sufficiently disillusioned to realize just how grave a threat these forces pose to what we used to be able to call, without irony, the American dream.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Dems "Hold Up the Kids" When Challenged


Dems "Hold Up the Kids"
    When Challenged


Democrats Introduce Debate Strategy Of Holding Up Small Child Whenever Their Positions Are Challenged

U.S.—Democrats are bringing a new tactic to the next presidential debate. Each candidate will arrive on the debate stage with a child to hold up whenever someone tries to question or challenge any of the statements they make.
"This cable TV debate format doesn't allow for long-winded answers and rebuttals. You gotta make your point and you need people to move on," said news anchor Anderson Cooper in support of the new debate technique.
Recently, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was asked about accepting lobbyist money and she immediately lifted up a five-year-old girl named Sophie.
"Why are you attacking this child? Are you some kind of monster?" she asked, leaving her interviewer speechless.
"These are the kind of people I'm up against," Warren later said to her supporters after dropping Sophie into a carrying case for later. "People who ruthlessly attack children."
The technique grew in popularity from that moment and Democrat parents were more than happy to hand over their children to deflect criticism of their favorite candidates. "We are so proud to have our son Marco being used to shame anyone who questions our man Biden," said Robert Ortiz, father of the boy Joe Biden carries around to shield himself from attacks. 
Reports indicate that Beto O'Rourke is having a harder time finding a child-shield, not because he's a creepy furry, but because his supporters have so few children, and are mostly creepy furries.
Amy Klobuchar has been through a few children already, sending several home needing therapy. "She's rough on kids but we're working with her," said Hannah Grantham, one of her child-handling trainers. 
The next Democrat debate will include frequent potty breaks for the kids but is expected to be much shorter than the recent seven-hour climate summit. "Cutting out all the rebuttals and questions is going to save us a ton of time," said CNN program director Charlie Foot. "These kids are doing the Lord's work."

Greta - Chucky

      She reminds me of CHUCKY (Creepy)

If You Can't Sell Your Hysteria to Adults, Try Kids

Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, of Sweden, addresses the Climate Action Summit in the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters, Monday, Sept. 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)




Image result for chucky doll movie









Today's Left & Right (Right Lose / Left Wins)

   It's All about controlling the Narrative!

             He's a Righty doing good thingsnda

                         Let's destroy him



She's a brain-washed child whose spreading Propaganda


     Let's defend her against the Right's vicious attacks


Man Who Raised Money For A Children’s Hospital Apologizes For Offensive Tweets At Age 16

"I am so embarrassed and stunned..."


JURE MAKOVEC / Contributor / Getty Images
It seems that the commissars of cancel culture have run out of comedians to embarrass by surfacing old tweets and are now moving on to men who raised over $1 million for a children's hospital.
Earlier this month, Iowa resident Carson King became a media sensation when "ESPN College GameDay" highlighted him holding a sign that read, "Busch Light supply need replenished. Venmo Carson-King-25." When his sign went viral, donors poured in all over the country to contribute to the fund. After raising over $1.14 million, King decided to donate the money University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital.
Unfortunately, what began as a positive story quickly turned into an ugly one when a reporter with the Des Moines Register dug into King's Twitter history to find offensive comments he made eight years ago when he was just 16.
"A routine background check of King's social media revealed two racist jokes, one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the holocaust. The joke tweets date back to 2012, when King was a 16-year-old high school student," wrote Aaron Calvin of the Des Moines Register. "When asked about the tweets, King was remorseful and thanked the Register for pointing them out, saying they made him 'sick.' He has since deleted them."


__________________________________________________________

Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: ‘Some people can let things go. I can’t’

One day last summer, aged 15, she skipped school, sat down outside the Swedish parliament – and inadvertently kicked off a global movement



Greta Thunberg … ‘I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything.’
 Greta Thunberg … ‘I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything.’ Photograph: Michael  
Greta Thunberg cut a frail and lonely figure when she started a school strike for the climate outside the Swedish parliament building last August. Her parents tried to dissuade her. Classmates declined to join. Passersby expressed pity and bemusement at the sight of the then unknown 15-year-old sitting on the cobblestones with a hand-painted banner.

Eight months on, the picture could not be more different. The pigtailed teenager is feted across the world as a model of determination, inspiration and positive action. National presidents and corporate executives line up to be criticised by her, face to face. Her skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for climate) banner has been translated into dozens of languages. And, most striking of all, the loner is now anything but alone.
On 15 March, when she returns to the cobblestones (as she has done almost every Friday in rain, sun, ice and snow), it will be as a figurehead for a vast and growing movement. The global climate strike this Friday is gearing up to be one of the biggest environmental protests the world has ever seen. As it approaches, Thunberg is clearly excited.
“It’s amazing,” she says. “It’s more than 71 countries and more than 700 places, and counting. It’s increasing very much now, and that’s very, very fun.”
A year ago, this was unimaginable. Back then, Thunberg was a painfully introverted, slightly built nobody, waking at 6am to prepare for school and heading back home at 3pm. “Nothing really was happening in my life,” she recalls. “I have always been that girl in the back who doesn’t say anything. I thought I couldn’t make a difference because I was too small.”
She was never quite like the other kids. Her mother, Malena Ernman, is one of Sweden’s most celebrated opera singers. Her father, Svante Thunberg, is an actor and author (named after Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who in 1896 first calculated how carbon dioxide emissions could lead to the greenhouse effect). Greta was exceptionally bright. Four years ago, she was diagnosed with Asperger’s.
“I overthink. Some people can just let thin